AUGUSTA – Members of Maine’s congressional delegation are upset at the revelation in The New York Times that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor international telephone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds, and possibly thousands, of people inside the United States without a judge’s approval.

“These reports raise serious concerns regarding domestic surveillance, safeguarding our constitutional rights, and the proper role of the National Security Agency,” Sen. Olympia Snowe said in a statement. “I am working with my colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee and with the Bush administration to determine exactly what activities have occurred and their legal implications.”

The purpose of the intercepts, the Times reported, was to monitor possible links to al-Qaida. Democratic 1st District Rep. Tom Allen said if that were the purpose, the government could have had a judge approve the intercepts in keeping with the usual practice for national security wiretaps.

“The president authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic surveillance on Americans without obtaining warrants,” he said. “No judicial oversight, no congressional oversight. We need hearings, in both the House and Senate, to find out exactly what happened and whether the Constitution and laws were followed.”

During the Senate debate Friday on the Patriot Act, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said he would convene hearings on the president’s actions next month. Specter is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” he said. Specter said scheduling the hearings early next year would have “a very, very high priority on my committee.”

Sen. Susan Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said she has been informed that only two senators, the chairman and the vice chairman of the intelligence committee, had been told of the surveillance. Kansas Republican Pat Roberts chairs the committee; West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller is the vice chairman of the panel.

“This is outside of the carefully established structures and safeguards that are in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” Collins said. “To me, it seems to be an attempt to evade the careful safeguards that are in the current law.”

Collins supports hearings and praised Specter for quickly responding to the “apparent” breach of federal law. She said it would be appropriate for both the judiciary and the intelligence committees to hold hearings.

Democratic 2nd District Rep. Michael Michaud said he was astonished to read about the intercepts and that they had been going on since 2002.

“This is an intrusion on American civil liberties and privacy,” he said. “It is an outrage that the administration would do this, and it should stop.”

Michaud said the government could have used the expedited process under the Patriot Act to gain judicial approval of the actions. He said authorizing the intercepts without judicial involvement is “an abuse of presidential power” and deserves a full investigation by Congress.

“I am very concerned about this,” he said. “We have a separation of powers, and unfortunately the Congress has not done the oversight it should in this and other areas.”

The report of the president’s executive order allowing some warrantless wiretapping of those living in the United States was neither confirmed nor denied Friday by White House spokesman Scott McClellan at his daily news briefing.

“The president is firmly committed to upholding our Constitution and protecting people’s civil liberties,” he said. “That is something he has always kept in mind as we have moved forward from the attacks of September 11th, to do everything within our power to prevent attacks from happening. Now in terms of talking about the National Security Agency or matters like that, that would be getting into talking about ongoing intelligence activities.”

Collins said White House officials are telling senators there are “inherent” constitutional powers that allow the president to authorize such surveillance. But Collins said she is not convinced of the legality of the action.

“It certainly is contrary to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” she said. “It does warrant hearings, oversight and an explanation.”